TOW 26- Why We Need Geography (Written/Argument)

To what extent do you agree with the main argument?

In Gil Grosvenor's "Why We Need Geography", he argues geography is an essential component of most issues and jobs. He believes the subject should infiltrate more schools and deserves , at least, "one tenth the amount of money history has." Providing many excellent points, Grosvenor's assertions are hard to disagree with, and geoliteracy should be emphasized in schooling as well as in international issues.

As a student of public schooling, I'm embarrassed by my own limited knowledge in geography. In my history class, my lack of knowledge of locations has impeded on successful understanding of some important events (where was the land bridge again?). While this is on a small scale, Grosvenor is able to connect geoliteracy with skillfullness in a multitude of jobs. It helps bankers decide the best loans to give, helps workers in real estate understand the patterns of the industry, and even farmers grow the best crops. While some students see geographical knowledge as a waste of time, given that Google is always there to direct you, the fact is that where things are has a huge effect on what they are. Especially in world wide problems.

When discussing geography in current events, Grosvenor focuses on the Obama administration's "what should we do in Afghanistan" poll. He sees it as good in concept, but because of the nation geographical illiteracy, ineffective. The nation was split half way in opposing decisions because many do not fully comprehend the issue.  Grosvenor argues that because the majority of Americans do not know about where Afghanistan is, and what exists there, they are unable to properly make a decision. Grosvenor believes the foundation of most misunderstanding is the lack of geographical knowledge. Despite his expertise, this is difficult to prove. Perhaps the way to find out is to do what he says, and better equip today's students with geographical understanding.

Tow 25- Getting Started (Visual)

Today, April 12th 2015, Hilary Clinton announced her anticipated candidacy for the presidential election of 2016. As someone who everyone knew was going to run, the video that was released works to excite the American public as well as subtly give a clue as to the kind of politician Clinton is.

In order to effectively convey a basic premise of her ambitions, Clinton uses a specific arrangement and repetition of examples of people "getting ready to..." and

The arrangement of the video is effective for achieving its purpose. The audience does not even see Clinton until the final moments. Instead, a variety of families are explaining what they are embarking on, families of different ages and ethnicities. Before viewing the candidate, viewers are likely to identify with somebody in the video. By forming this connection with the audience, the announcement is well perceived by many.

Not only are the people in the video diverse in what they look like, but what they are saying are shaping the stances Clinton hopes to deliver. When you leave the video, you know Clinton is in support of: gay marriage, successful businesses, support of senior citizens, strong education and aiding the job industry.  And she didn't say a thing about it.

TOW #22 - 'Foxcatcher" A quietly devastating drama

This review of a heavily nominated film is able to capture the essence of the movie as well as voice some criticisms in a subtle fashion through its arrangement. The piece begins with a look into the history that the film is based upon. While perhaps giving away some spoilers (only to those unfamiliar with the true event) this opens the article to those who have not seen the movie and are looking for some insight. 

Directly following the historical background is a paragraph dedicated to praising the director, Bennett Miller. As someone who has seen the movie, the review's author Ty Burr beautifully describing how Foxcatcher "could have made a three-ring circus of this story, pushing the weirdness and driving home his points about the evil, idle rich. Instead, “Foxcatcher” is measured and mournful sometimes to a fault." Burr is able to describe what you should expect going into the theater to see this movie, as it isn't action filled but rather tediously developed and possibly uncomfortable.  

Following praise of the director is praise of the actors. Truly a film that is victorious because of its well-developed characters, Burr is able to emphasize the quality of the three male leads while continuing to explain a  little more about the plot of the movie itself. 

The review concludes with a repeated stance on the overall movie as "terribly sad". Which trust me, it was. Once again Burr peers at what some other critics say this time about the movie being a little far from the actuality of the event, but in his last effort to defend the film, explains why it may not matter. 

TOW #19- Why Children's Theater Matters (Written)

Why Children's theater matters is a transcript of a speech given by Lyn Gardner. The audience is stated to be those in attendance that the Unicorn Theater in London. Her speech followed that acceptance of an award for outstanding contribution to children's arts. Gardner develops an effective argument for more recognition needed to the performances done for children. She has excellent arrangement as she begins by establishing ethos through her analogy, explaining why this issue needs change, developing the issue in a greater context, and finally point-blankly stating how she believes theater should be viewed.

While clearly being viewed as one with upstanding credibility, given she was being recognized for it, Gardner still begins by giving reason for her opinion to be valued. She casually reflects into some of her past work, but in the field of children's novels. She equates the questioning of why children's books are seen as less to why theater is seen as less. This analogy is effective as it is not too far from the actual ideas Gardner plans to propose and easy to connect to. Even if you do not like theater, nearly every child of the parents in her audience is in love with a book, making it simple to establish a connection between her ideas and the audience.

Following suit, Gardner explains why there should be change. She defends art as a whole, but keeps her focus on why it is beneficial for children. She does not diminish the other forms of theater, but explains how even Shakespeare teaches us to cherish art for young people. She continues to explain why art should be fostered in schools, providing examples of when misconceptions arose of math and science being of far more importance. The entire body of her speech works to spark a new thought, or a different perspective, for her audience, and is effective in her overall goal of arguing that children's theater matters.

Gardner ends her speech with a simple two sentence paragraph that articulates what she has implicitly argued the entire speech. She takes the broad ideas she has developed and comes back to her original, pointed thought. By the end of her speech, Gardner develops a provocative argument that works to leave the audience questioning and pondering how children's theater is viewed.

TOW #18 - Gillette Razor (Visual)

In immediacy this advertisement strikes me as old-fashioned, heart warming, and to the point. These qualities help in making it effective in its goal to sell the product.

The baby in the photo is wearing a bonnet. He is surrounded by simple tile and in a vignette style framing. The font is straightforward and the colors are a little faded. This aged feeling brings the brand being sold a sense of wisdom. It is not a new brand, it is what has always been around. the brand is established as trustworthy and accountable, striving to connect the audience to  the family brand, something that will not let you down.

The tone of the image is warming and inviting to a viewer. The prime focus of the piece is the laughing child, doing something a baby should not do, shave its face. Just like in commercials with the babies who speak in deep voices intellectually, this brings a similar humor. Not only that, razors are sharp and can cause damage. This ad proposes the idea that if a baby is able to use the razor without hazard, than a grown adult can as well. Perhaps they can even find skin as soft as a baby's.

Finally, the image is not too crowded and has a very clear message: this is a good razor. The brand name and company is prominent and emphasized, with a few catchy slogans around it that may stick in the viewer's mind. The word safety is included in the name of the product, articulating the very idea of the image as a whole. Overall, the advertisement is very effective and utilizes rhetorical strategies in order to create a clear vision of a product.

Intro IRB #3 - The Unkindest Cut

For the third marking period I will be reading The Unkindest Cut by Joe Queenan. As the cover describes it, Queenan;s work is about "how a hatchet-man critic made his own $7,000 movie and put it all on his credit card". The book was recommended to me by fellow APELC student, Max Benowitz, and I look forward to reading it.

TOW #17 - "Still Alice" (Written)

Typically, reviews of films will give context of a film while providing a clear position on the effectiveness and likability of the movie itself. The review of "Still Alice" written by Peter Debruge fails to establish a clear claim, hardly discussing anything but the plot. While he has implicitly suggested he enjoyed the film, because of his syntax and points chosen to discuss, the reader is left still curious to the question of whether or not to see the movie, which is usually the reason they turned to the article in the first place.

Debruge opens his article by explaining that Still Alice is not like other movies dealing with Alzheimer's, as it is organized through the victim's point of view and not that of family members/friends. While Debruge does explain how this allows the audience to connect better with someone suffering from the disease, he does so so casually that it is almost missed. His diction is weak and undirected, leading to the reader feeling only semi-satisfied.

That being said, Debruge does make it clear that the lead of the movie, Julianne Moore, is impeccable. Her performance is praised, but in a somewhat confusing manner. Debruge utilizes words like "underplaying" which carries a negative connotation, as a way to support his claim that she was powerful and accomplished. Once again, the reader is left with a sense of confusion, unsure whether or not what took place in the film was bad, good, or neither.

Debruge also takes a lot of time to discuss the lives of the directors, without ever mentioning that the names given were the directors at all! While their lives are indeed fascinating, clearly paralleling the essence of the movie, the amount of time and detail attending to their story is inappropriate for the context of the review. DEbruge really missed the mark when it came to providing evidence to support his claim, which is unsurprising as his claim hardly exists.